To those who are so up in arms about the Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsement of Clinton:

[Empowerer]

I find all of these objections to be rather odd in the context of what we've been seeing on DU lately. I have absolutely no doubt that had PPAF endorse Bernie Sanders, not only would his supporters have been over the moon about it, they would have insisted that it was absolute, certain, unassailable proof that Sen. Sanders is superior in every way to Hillary Clinton and that Secretary Clinton is a terrible, horrible no good person. Of course, I expect some folks to deny this ("Oh, no. I would have felt the same way if they had endorsed Bernie!&quot but we all know better.

How DARE they endorse ANYONE at this stage of the process! This is UNPRECEDENTED!!!

As has been pointed out in other threads, this is not unprecedented at all. Not only has the PPAC endorsed Democratic candidates in previous presidential primaries, several non-profits and action funds have endorsed Sanders in this round, with nary a peep of objection from Sanders supporters.


2) How DARE they endorse Hillary Clinton. Don't they know that Bernie Sanders is much better on their issues?

This criticism - besides showing blatant ignorance about how Planned Parenthood, in particular, and non-profits and their action committees, in general, operate - reveal an attitude that some folks don't realize is being displayed. The notion that Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood and or the PP Action Fund are just flat out wrong and that they couldn't possibly figure out which political candidate they believe is better for them is ludicrous. These are not stupid people and they are very familiar - more so than most of us - with their issues and the candidates and certainly know better than we do what is in their best political interest.

Who cares? Endorsements don't mean a damned thing!

Funny, this isn't what these same folks say when people and organizations endorse Bernie Sanders - like, for example, when Killer Mike endorsed Sen. Sanders a few weeks ago. Then we were treated to countless posts about what a YUUUGE impact this would make on the race, especially in encouraging black voters to flock to Sanders.

So, as folks clutch their pearls and swoon and then bare their teeth and snarl at one of the most important and respected non-profits in the country at the very thought that PPAC endorsed Hillary Clinton, I will just smile and shake my head at how more and more ridiculous this place is getting every day.

[NastyRiffraff]

1. K&R!

Excellent post, not that it will change minds that are firmly closed and locked.

[Thinkingabout]

2. I ask the question would it have been Sanders who was endorsed would

It be acceptable and was told it would be if Sanders. It can't be different just it is because a candidate is one you support.

[Fawke Em]

4. I think they should have waited.

Endorsing any Dem candidate before we have a nominee is a slap in the face at the other candidates' supporters.

That's where they screwed up.

[Thinkingabout]

6. This is their decision, and it isn't any different from any other groups

Which have endorsed. Why is Planned Parenthood be held to a different standard than DFA.

[libdem4life]

10. Actually it should be up to their members. The timing was clearly to help Hillary

but being a respected organization requires more of the administration of a entity to be fair. It also clearly raises what many of us hear that women vote for women. Every person has freedom, but an organization has a whole more at stake.

I don't mind the daughter being hired, because she seems qualified. But it did make it seem a quid pro quo...and I don't care who it is...that's just a NO.

ETA: Also, seems like a good deal of their members or whatever they have were shocked and angered...as they should be, as it is a slap in the face to women for Bernie who are pro-choice.

[Thinkingabout]

12. Was the DFA timing to help Sanders?

[libdem4life]

16. Apples and Oranges.

About the Endorsement Process

The driving force behind all DFA endorsements is our members. We recognize that all politics is local and that what is considered progressive in Los Angeles may be very different from what's considered progressive in Louisville. For this reason, DFA does not have a litmus test of specific progressive positions for which a candidate must stand. Our endorsement is heavily weighted based on these questions:

• Will the candidate move the progressive movement forward in their community?
• Does the candidate have substantial support from our local members?
• Do the candidate's positions and policies fit into the broader progressive movement?
• Is the campaign people-powered and the candidate working to win?

If you have questions, or want to let us know about a candidate in your neighborhood, please call us at [phone] or email us at [e-mail] .

[Thinkingabout]

29. It is about endorsements, DFA or other endorsements, however

The decision of endorsements is achieved, I haven't gone to the FB of DFA, I accept the fact DFA has enforced Sanders.

[libdem4life]

30. Asked and answered.

[dragonfly301]

33. Wasn't DFA's endorsement

a members vote?

[Empowerer]

13. "Timing was clearly to help Hillary." Ya think? That's the point of an endorsement . . .n/t

[libdem4life]

17. It's an organization, not a person. An organization is held to a higher standard as they

have MEMBERS. The Unions screwed up on this, too...and imagine who the Leaders chose? No polling of the members. See, this is the difference from your snarky response.

[Empowerer]

18. It doesn't matter. The whole POINT of an endorsement is to help the candidate being endorsed.

[libdem4life]

20. The members don't matter????? Wow. Peace out.

[oasis]

24. Makes sense to me. (eom)

[tammywammy]

28. ...

Fund didn’t choose to endorse Hillary Clinton in a vacuum. Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood advocacy and political organizations across the country worked together to come to a decision:

Our process involved months of research on records like the ones you see above, and answers to questionnaires that we sent all the presidential candidates.

In addition, an interview team comprised of policy experts, board leaders, youth organizers, and other key individuals — including a Planned Parenthood local advocacy organization CEO, a health care provider, a Planned Parenthood supporter who’s also a patient, and a reproductive justice ally — interviewed the candidates who responded to the questionnaire.

We also got feedback from hundreds of grassroots Planned Parenthood supporters in person and thousands online to create a set of values to guide us.

- See more at: http://plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/blog/how-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/#sthash.PoBdmeCt.dpuf

[Hekate]

46. Watch these facts be soundly ignored by the outraged

[tammywammy]

47. Someone replied earlier to me that linking to the PPAF site was a "biased piece"

People will believe whatever they want to believe.

[Kentonio]

58. Who told you it would have been different if it was Sanders?

Links please, because me and all the other Sanders supporters I've seen criticize this have been quite clear that we'd have been just as angry if this had been an endorsement of Bernie too. PP should not be risking their unanimous Democratic support by jumping into the primary like this.

[Thinkingabout]

60. It was someone being honest, you can search

[Fawke Em]

3. That doesn't absolve them of making a big mistake.

I don't want one thin dime of mine going to that corporate-owned war hawk and, since I can't seem to find how they divide their contributions between their services and their political action committee, then I can't rest assured she won't get some of my hard-earned money.

They should have just waited until there was a nominee. Period.

[Empowerer]

9. Let me help you with that

Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood Action Fund are two completely separate entities and the contributions sent to each of them are also completely separate. If you've donate money to Planned Parenthood, not one single cent of that will go to the Action Fund - and vice versa.

So, you can very comfortably continue to donate to Planned Parenthood, knowing that your money won't go anywhere near any politician, regardless of their politics.

I hope that's helpful.

BTW, if they had waited until there was a nominee and that nominee is Hillary Clinton and if your erroneous assumption that the money was shared between the two organizations had been correct, some of your money could still go to "that corporate-owned war hawk,"so why would their waiting have made any difference to you?

[libdem4life]

19. Stop splitting economic hairs. There is no more well-known single-gender organization

That I'm aware of. This is political, not monetary for most of us...of "that" gender. Ill-chosen decision. IMO. But then the daughter got a job, qualified to be sure, but surely moved up to the top of the list. Quid Pro Quo.

[Empowerer]

22. You obviously have other issues, completely unrelated to the question asked and answered

But your angst is noted.

[tammywammy]

14. It took me a couple minutes

Donations made to Planned Parenthood can be directed 100% to a specific organization (your local PP) or they will be split 50/50 local/Planned Parenthood Federation. These donations are tax deductible.

https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Donation2?df_id=12913&12913.donation=form1&s_src=Evergreen_c3_PPNonDirected_tab

Separately is the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and you donate directly there. This is not tax deductible.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is an independent, non-partisan, not-for-profit membership organization formed as the political and advocacy arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageNavigator/pp_ppaf_disclaimer.html

The PAC is completely separate from the non-profit. If you truly want to continue donations you'd just select your local Planned Parenthood organization and 100% of your donations are sent there.

[libdem4life]

21. Doesn't help. I'm looking for the next organization. Mistake.

[tammywammy]

23. It's sad that even knowing the funding is separate

You're willing to stop donations that help people in need. Thankfully your line of thinking seems to be in the great minority.

[libdem4life]

25. No, it's sad that the general population is not as informed as you are.

They have done a good job and have built a good name. Jumping on the Woman's Ship has nothing to do with their internal money processes. Bad decision.

[Hekate]

48. What do you even mean by "the Woman's Ship"?

[libdem4life]

52. That's one of those questions that "If you need to ask it, my answer won't help.

[SusanCalvin]

39. Thank you. nt

[Starry Messenger]

5. K&R

[99Forever]

7. They fucked up, big time.

Deal with it.

[Triana]

8. I'm not up in arms. They clearly laid out their sensible reasons for the endorsement.

They make sense to me in the context of what PPFA is about.

http://plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/blog/how-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/

[Empowerer]

11. You aren't one of the people to whom my OP was directed

I appreciate your even-handedness. Thanks.

[JoePhilly]

15. The perpetually disgruntled will remain disgruntled.

It is who they are.

They've spent the last 7+ years complaining about the evil Obama.

They do the same during the primaries.

And they'll do the same after Hillary takes office.

[oasis]

27. As long as they throw their tantrums somewhere other than DU after

Hillary gets the nomination, they can ramble on. Who cares?

[Hekate]

49. They'll simmer down until the day after the votes are counted, then be right back at it....

Guaranteed. The pattern is set. The grudge match has been going on forever.

[still_one]

26. very well articulated

[MisterP]

31. you forgot the main one: that it really looks like, for the 600th time, a liberal org has been arm-

twisted into giving her cover with the liberals and turned into a campaigning arm, for the reason that one candidate forgives it when you don't endorse him and the other doesn't, and with only the gatekeepers approving it and the bulk of the membership not even aware what was about to happen

[zentrum]

32. As I understand it

…Cecil Richard's daughter works for the Clinton Foundation and so this wreaks of cronyism.

Secondly, I've read that they have never endorsed so early before. It just smells bad. And yes, I'd be just as upset if they had endorsed Bernie at this point and I'm a Bernie supporter.

It's not just about my team winning—it's about doing the things that are the most inclusive for all the supporters of PP. And endorsing so early, before the people themselves—not the Democratic machine—have voted is a politicalization that a medical organization should not be doing.

[dragonfly301]

34. She went from working for the DNC

to working for Hillary.

[Empowerer]

35. I think it IS about your team winning, since you are reaching for reasons to find something wrong

with the endorsement and I am sure that you have not applied similar scrutiny to any of Bernie Sanders' endorsements.

Cecile Richards' daughter is an experienced campaign and political staffer who has worked in this field for years and has been working for the Clinton campaign for months - she didn't just get hired there. Do you expect her to sit out this election cycle to the detriment of her own career just in case Planned Parenthood Action Fund decided to endorse one of the candidates at some point?

I don't know whether or not they have ever endorsed this early before, but so what? Maybe the way they were doing it before didn't work and they realized that they should step in earlier when they could actually make a difference. Why do you automatically assume that if they're doing it differently this time than they did last time, it MUST mean that this time they are engaged in some kind of corrupt or misguided shenanigans?

And arguing that they should endorse "before the people themselves have voted" makes absolutely no sense. The entire POINT of an endorsement is to try to influence people BEFORE they vote, not step in after the fact, which would mean engaging in a futile act. Newspapers endorse BEFORE an election. Political leaders endorse BEFORE an election. Unions endorse BEFORE an election. I assume that you are on DU, at least partly, because you are trying to influence others to vote for your candidate. You obviously are doing that BEFORE an election, since advocating for a candidate AFTER an election would be rather silly.

[zentrum]

44. Thanks for underscoring my point.

PP has a medical mission. When it endorses BEFORE an election it puts politics before mission and risks alienating many of the groups it desperately needs. Why do that?

Bernie would be just as dedicated to their survival and refunding as HRC would be and so there was no intrinsic need whatsoever. It was naked politics. That's not why I send money to PP. I send money to them as a medical organization for the welfare of all women.

Of course they have to endorse the Democratic candidate over any repug, in the general, for their survival. But they should make damn sure they are not turning off many of the Democratic women (especially our young voters) who support Bernie and OMalley, and along the way subverting their own mission by playing political games.

BTW—they didn't endorse last time and did they really do so badly under Obama and the ACA? I don't think so. Your argument is hollow.

This walks and talks like cronyism.

[Art_from_Ark]

63. +1

[KingFlorez]

40. Why would you be upset had they endorsed Bernie?

That seems like talk just to seem "fair". Bernie was not robbed or cheated, no one is out to get him, so this paranoia is ridiculous.

Let's go back to the fact that Sanders did not received Planned Parenthood's endorsement while running for Senate in 2012, so it's not like it was exactly a surprise he didn't get it for President.

[zentrum]

45. Why?

Because PP is a medical organization and I wouldn't want to alienate HRC supporters. It's stupid politics.

So yes, believe it or not, I'd think they were being just as stupid if they endorsed Bernie before the Primaries.

You don't think it's a problem that PP Facebook endorsement page has exploded with negative comments (and some positives ones I'm sure)—and that arousing that level of hostility is just my ridiculous "paranoia"? No. It's bad politics subverting a good mission.

[Kentonio]

59. +1000

[BlueCollar]

36. The fact that Planned Parenthood endorsed HRC

Is not going to change:

1) That I will vote for Senator Sanders in the primary here in Texas.

2) That I will continue to contribute to Planned Parenthood as often and as much as I can.

3) That I will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of their name or gender in the general election.

I live in Texas. I can't afford to put altruism ahead of practicality...and neither can I afford to pretend.

[BlueMTexpat]

57. Thanks for your sanity!

[Lazy Daisy]

37. We also know better

If PPAC would have endorsed Bernie Sanders at this time instead of Hillary Clinton, there would be the same mix of reactions from her supporters. So when Hillary supporters try to shame others on how they are reacting, I will just smile and shake my head.

[Iliyah]

41. 98% of HRC supporters on the DU do not throw BS' endorsements under the bus.

People, Unions and others who endorse HRC are thrashed including thrashing their FB and other social media outlets.

[Lazy Daisy]

50. Really?

Tell that to Susan Sarandon and Nina Turner

[leftofcool]

61. I doubt you will find one nasty post on either woman's FB page by any Hillary supporter

We don't do that.

[SusanCalvin]

38. Serious question -

Whom has PPAC endorsed in a primary before?

[bvf]

51. I was about to ask the same thing. n/t

[SusanCalvin]

53. I hope someone answers us.

If not, guess I'll be Googling tomorrow.

[bvf]

54. I'll save you the trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/planned-parenthood-in-its-first-primary-endorsement-backs-hillary-clinton/?_r=0

Looks like someone's playing fast and loose with the facts.

[SusanCalvin]

55. So those who say PPAC has previously made primary endorsements

Are misinformed or, uh, prevaricating?

[bvf]

56. I've seen enough lately

to be confident that it's prevarication.

From deliberate misquotations (two of them, back-to-back--from a single poster, no less) to another user who keeps posting the same misattribution over and over, it's obvious that desperation has given way to having to outright lie.

And that's just from today. The Let's-Slime-Sanders team is clearly working overtime.

[bornskeptic]

62. Not the first time nytimes has been wrong.

http://www.lifenews.com/2004/04/24/nat-469/
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Making its first ever endorsement of a presidential candidate, the nation’s largest abortion business gave its endorsement to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt called Kerry a "consistent and passionate advocat e" of abortion.

[bvf]

64. Check your source and your facts.

By the time PP endorsed Kerry, Super Tuesday was over with, with Kerry unbeatable.

Really? Lifenews.com? That's a reach.

Next time I want to fact-check the NYT, I'll be sure to head to an anti-choice website.

[Iliyah]

42. Enjoyed the read - Empowerer!

And thank you.